J Psychother Pract Res DSM-IV-TR Content Alerting
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ALL ISSUES SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eells, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lucas, C. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eells, T. D.
Right arrow Articles by Lucas, C. P.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Diagnostic Tools
Right arrow Other Psychotherapy
J Psychother Pract Res 7:144-153, April 1998
© 1998 American Psychiatric Press, Inc.


Regular Article

What's in a Case Formulation?: Development and Use of a Content Coding Manual

Tracy D. Eells, Ph.D., Edward M. Kendjelic, M.A. and Cynthia P. Lucas, M.A.

Received July 9, 1997; revised October 10, 1997; accepted October 21, 1997. From the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. Address correspondence to Dr. Eells, University Psychiatric Services, P.S.C., 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY 40202.

A case formulation content coding method is described and applied to the formulation section of 56 intake evaluations randomly selected from an outpatient psychiatric clinic. The coding manual showed good reliability (mean kappa = 0.86) across content and quality categories. Although 95% of the formulations included descriptive infor- mation, only 37% addressed hypothesized predisposing life events accounting for the individual's presenting problems, and 16% included a precipitating stressor. Only 43% inferred a psychological mechanism, 2% inferred a biological mechanism, and 2% mentioned sociocultural factors. Formulations were more descriptive than inferential, more simple than complex, and moderately precise in use of language. In sum, clinicians used the formulation primarily to summarize descriptive information rather than to integrate it into a hypothesis about the causes, precipitants, and maintaining influences of an individual's problems.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.Home page
C. Mace and S. Binyon
Teaching psychodynamic formulation to psychiatric trainees: Part 1: Basics of formulation
Advan. Psychiatr. Treat., November 1, 2005; 11(6): 416 - 423.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Acad. PsychiatryHome page
K. Sim, K. P. Gwee, and A. Bateman
Case Formulation in Psychotherapy: Revitalizing Its Usefulness as a Clinical Tool
Acad Psychiatry, August 1, 2005; 29(3): 289 - 292.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Acad. PsychiatryHome page
T. McClain, P. S. O'Sullivan, and J. A. Clardy
Biopsychosocial Formulation: Recognizing Educational Shortcomings
Acad Psychiatry, June 1, 2004; 28(2): 88 - 94.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ALL ISSUES SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 American Psychiatric Association